My drive this morning, nearly went pear shaped
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Harry Bloomfield on 16 Apr 2010 19:27 MrBitsy submitted this idea : > One would hope anticipation would stop someone passing a car at a low speed > approaching several possible routes. >> The 'slow driver' was obviously putting his own safety at risk by his speed. Why compound the error and put your own safety at risk by driving at a similarly slow speed? The risk of passing them at a sensible speed and with extra care has to be balanced against alternative - the risks inherent in slowing down their speed. By default, under the circumstances mention I would be inclined to the first option to get me out of the way quickly. -- Regards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk
From: Raymond Keattch on 16 Apr 2010 19:28 On 14/04/2010 13:34, ChelseaTractorMan wrote: > On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:04:44 +0100, ChelseaTractorMan > <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > > >> this post is a prime example of rec.driving posters hilarious need to >> rubbish anybody who reports somebody else's bad driving here. >> > (you should observe indicators and use them as likely indications of > intent - obviously you do not pull out in front of a car because it > "appears" from indicators to be turning off before it reaches you. > However, its absurd to suggest that you would not make a manoeuvre > that you would make **in the absence of indicators**, when the > indicators *reinforce* what you are doing is perfectly safe and > routine). > Sigh! The incident you described was not indicators only. There were several clues and limited safe space that suggested passing the hatch was not advisable. -- MrBitsy
From: Harry Bloomfield on 16 Apr 2010 19:30 It happens that Raymond Keattch formulated : > The incident happened through poor driving by the driver of the hatch. The > error by the other driver was made worse by you not spotting the clues that > the driver may move right (which it actually did, proving my point). Any car can pull right whilst signally left. I'm sure if the car had signalled left and gone left Mike would not have felt any need to mention it in this ng. -- Regards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk
From: Raymond Keattch on 16 Apr 2010 19:31 On 17/04/2010 00:06, ChelseaTractorMan wrote: > On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 22:51:43 +0100, Raymond Keattch > <ray.keattch(a)infinity.com> wrote: > > >> The error by the other driver was made worse by you not spotting the >> clues that the driver may move right (which it actually did, proving my >> point). >> > no, not proving your point, think about it. > The situation you described gave valuable clues to a possible move to the right - which it did! >> Dishonest logic - I would love to understand what the hell you are on >> about! >> > then think about it > I have, please explain. -- MrBitsy
From: Raymond Keattch on 16 Apr 2010 22:04
On 17/04/2010 00:30, Harry Bloomfield wrote: > It happens that Raymond Keattch formulated : >> The incident happened through poor driving by the driver of the >> hatch. The error by the other driver was made worse by you not >> spotting the clues that the driver may move right (which it actually >> did, proving my point). > > Any car can pull right whilst signally left. I'm sure if the car had > signalled left and gone left Mike would not have felt any need to > mention it in this ng. > Of course not as it wouldn't have been a near miss for him! -- MrBitsy |